sound doctrine in Puerto Rico

1970“By the great weight of authority a municipality cannot be divested of title to its streets held in trust for public use by adverse possession for the prescriptive period, [citations] We think this is the sound rule and adhere to it.” (Italics ours.) In the related case of City of Fort Worth v. Burnett, 114 S.W.2d 220 (Texas 1938), the same had already been stated at p. 223: “It is established by the authorities that, where property is appropriated to public use by common law dedication of the owner, the municipality within whose borders the premises are situated takes it, as trustee for the p

1956Ed. 1259, 1262 , the United States Supreme Court, ratifying its former opinion, stated that “Whenever a statute gives discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction, that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.” See, also, United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 37 L.

1923The court assents to this general proposition as embodying a sound principle of constitutional law.’ It was there held, however, that the legislation under consideration in that case did not violate any of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in error.” Smith v. Texas, 233 U. S. 630 , was a case of undue requirements for a train conductor.

1906(People v. Roberts, 6 Cal., 214 ; People v. Sánchez, 24 Cal., 17 .) But let us assume in honor to the learned counsel for the •defense, that the charge was presented here in due form, and let us also assume that the jury was not charged on homicide •committed in self-defense; then we have section 266 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the defendant the right to ask that certain charges be given to the jury, and if this was not done in due time, we find the sound doctrine in the notes to section 1127 of the Penal Code of California, which is very similar to section 266 of our Code,

1906(People v. Roberts, 6 Cal., 214 ; People v. Sánchez, 24 Cal., 17 .) But let us assume in honor to the learned counsel for the •defense, that the charge was presented here in due form, and let us also assume that the jury was not charged on homicide •committed in self-defense; then we have section 266 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the defendant the right to ask that certain charges be given to the jury, and if this was not done in due time, we find the sound doctrine in the notes to section 1127 of the Penal Code of California, which is very similar to section 266 of our Code,

1906(People v. Roberts, 6 Cal., 214 ; People v. Sánchez, 24 Cal., 17 .) But let us assume in honor to the learned counsel for the •defense, that the charge was presented here in due form, and let us also assume that the jury was not charged on homicide •committed in self-defense; then we have section 266 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the defendant the right to ask that certain charges be given to the jury, and if this was not done in due time, we find the sound doctrine in the notes to section 1127 of the Penal Code of California, which is very similar to section 266 of our Code,

1906(People v. Roberts, 6 Cal., 214 ; People v. Sánchez, 24 Cal., 17 .) But let us assume in honor to the learned counsel for the •defense, that the charge was presented here in due form, and let us also assume that the jury was not charged on homicide •committed in self-defense; then we have section 266 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the defendant the right to ask that certain charges be given to the jury, and if this was not done in due time, we find the sound doctrine in the notes to section 1127 of the Penal Code of California, which is very similar to section 266 of our Code,

1906(People v. Roberts, 6 Cal., 214 ; People v. Sánchez, 24 Cal., 17 .) But let us assume in honor to the learned counsel for the •defense, that the charge was presented here in due form, and let us also assume that the jury was not charged on homicide •committed in self-defense; then we have section 266 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the defendant the right to ask that certain charges be given to the jury, and if this was not done in due time, we find the sound doctrine in the notes to section 1127 of the Penal Code of California, which is very similar to section 266 of our Code,

1905In other words, the sound rule is that a sentence is legal so far as it is within the provisions of law and the jurisdiction of the court over the person and offense, and only void as to the excess when such excess is separable, and may be dealt with without disturbing the valid portion of the sentence. ’ ’ (United States v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S., 62 .) And again, affirming what was said in the Swan case, in the following language: “Thus in re Swan, 150 U. S., 637, 653 , it is stated that, ‘even if it was not within the power of the court to require payment of costs, and its judgment to that ext

1904Errors and irregularities of procedure not going to the question of jurisdiction are not reviewable on hateas corpus.” (Church on Habeas Corpus, sec. 87.) There is no question that this is sound doctrine, as it has been announced by many of the highest courts of the country; among others, the Supreme Court of California, in the case of Bird, Ex parte, 19 California, 130, and the Supreme Court of Texas, in the ease of Darrah v. Westerlage, 44 Texas, 88 .